[cc-community] [cc-licenses] human rights license
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Dec 1 18:32:45 EST 2005
On Thursday 01 December 2005 06:14 am, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> This really should be on cc-community. I've cross-posted it.
>
> Quoting phyllostachys nuda <phnuda at yahoo.com>:
> > Who decides what is ethical: Anyone can decide a starting set of
> > rules. Others will expand the list in the future in various other
> > licenses. They can steal ideas from human rights law, such as the
> > Geneva Conventions, etc.
>
> But the UN Declaration of Human Rights is itself complex and requires
> interpretation. Piecemeal introduction of ideas from it into another
> ethical system will not make that system any more rigorous.
>
> As for anyone deciding a starting set of rules, various extremist
> groups have a
> fairly different idea of what is ethical from you or I. Some of them may
> write good code (or, to drag this remotely back on list topic, produce good
> illustrations or music). They can deny us use of their work because we will
> use
> it for ends *they* regard as non-ethical.
>
> Whereas if we make the only freedom the license is concerned with the
> freedom to
> create, we are all at least free to create in the pursuit of our own social
> ends.
>
> > Who would use it: Everyone can decide for themselves to use it or
> > not, just like when GPL etc first started out. It doesn't matter if a
> > ton of people don't use it.
>
> But it does matter if it is ultimately self-defeating.
>
> > Its not free: Irrelevant. The GPL is not totally 'free',
I will try bringing my replies here as well, but I don't know if the original
poster will see this.
It may be irrelevant to some, but it is certainly not irrelevant to me and
once again you are being insulting. (You being phnuda at yahoo.com)
>
> It protects the freedom it is designed to. Don't confuse liberty with
> anarchy or
> a free lunch.
Not only that, unless you want a world of fun and confusion, when talking of
free software licenses, it does not help to call the biggest license
non-free.
>
> > nor are certain versions of Creative Commons. That doesn't make them
> > bad licenses.
>
> ND and NC may be regarded as ethical constraints. ND protects the author's
> unique voice, NC protects their ability not to starve. Both restrict
> creative freedom.
I personally think it makes them bad licenses, although I may be driven to use
some combination of them perding resolution of the "work" issue that was so
hot recently.
>
> The GPL (and BY-SA) protect the freedom to create by removing the
> freedom to use
> the work they cover from people who refuse to protect that freedom.
Indeed, and this is one of their main attractions to me.
> This is what
> I mean by these licenses being reflexive. An "ethical" license removes the
> freedom to use work for other reasons. Which is very different and opens a
> Pandora's box of possible reasons and motivations which have nothing to
> do with
> creativity and in fact prevent people from being able to create.
>
> > What exactly would be ethical:
> > How about this for starters
> > 1. 'this code shall not be used, in whole or in part, in any
> > software or hardware system that is used for torturing prisoners or
> > detainees'.
The problem is not the start, it is the end. When you have thirty thousand
pages of fine print restrictions where will you be. (Hyperbole for those
unfamiliar. Hopefully in any case.)
>
> OK. But your license doesn't cover Guatanamo Bay, where enemy combatants
> are being interrogated. Or the use of your work in biological or quantum
> torture systems. Or for the torture of civilians attacked in their homes.
>
> > 2. 'this code shall not be used, in whole or in part, in any
> > software or hardware guidance system for any missile or artillery
> > projectile system whose purpose is the delivery of biological,
> > chemical, or nuclear weapons'
>
> What about energy weapons to induce pain? Or nanotechnological weapons?
> Or white
> phosphorous, or napalm, or fuel-air explosive? Or laser blinding weapons?
>
> Or bullets for that matter.
>
> > Mongo and Chaco prove it won't work: This is only one case study and
> > it is not convincing. We have the word of a single person as to what
> > happened.
>
> Which part of their description do you have evidence is false?
>
> - Rob.
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22
More information about the cc-community
mailing list